Talk:Baitul Futuh Mosque

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claim[edit]

I've been to yop derpderpderpderp and can most definitely say its not the largest mosque in Europe. The Blue Mosque in Istanbul (Sultanahmet Camii) dwarfs this one easily. The Selimiye Camii in Edirne is also bigger, and I'm quite sure the Qolşärif Mosque in Kazan, Russia, is also larger, although I've never been there personally. I'm changing this false claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.70.119 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get all angry at this claim. Russia, Turkey etc are not Western Europe. Ahmadis are learned people and we know our history (and geography). I think the new Saudi funded mosque in East london will become the largest mosque in the UK, and western Europe. But at the time of construction, Baitul Futuh was the largest mosque in Western Europe. Khokhar976 (talk)

So... Mosque of Rome is apparently much larger than Baitul Futuh, so I don't see why the claim to be the largest mosque in Western Europe, except for the Guardian article. I'm posting this here if anyone has anything to say about it before changing the article. Messlo (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, Rome wasn't in Western Europe. Southern Europe, sure; Western World, OK; Western Europe -no.Mavigogun (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definition of Western Europe. From the National Geographic Society map, Italy is in Western Europe.--Carnby (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While accurate, the inclusion of the caveat in the lead was both awkward and illuminating; the subdivision of Europe seems contrived for no other purpose than for a meaningless number one assertion. The lead has been reworded to include the context of all Europe.Mavigogun (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An argument for 'second largest in Europe after the Mosque of Rome': the limitation of 'Western Europe' begs the question 'what is the limitation excluding that's bigger?' Lacking the exclusion, what do we get? More comprehensively useful information- information that better serves the needs of the end user. 'But, it was published someplace this way- aren't we slaves to what ever is published?' Absolutely- not. Our edict is to discriminate what serves the article, free of advocacy, and support the article with reference- not to mirror every characterization of passing popularity.Mavigogun (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continue talking here. You stated that the capacity of the Mosque of Rome is 5000 inside and 5000 outside. Should the capacity of the outside be included, which seems to be the reason why Rome mosque is 30000 sq meters, and thus placed as a larger mosque? Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "what do we mean by mosque/what is included in size assessment" discussion needs to be resolved before any claim of relative size may be made. A discussion of the mater has been started at Talk:List of largest mosques; unless a metric consensus is reached, every concerned editor with a different standard will "correct" the "mistaken" assessment of relative size on any given mosque page.--Mavigogun (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mosque of Rome can accommodate 12000 people; the Baitful only 10000. The mosque of Rome is within an are of 30000 m2: the Baitful only 21,000 m2. I suppose mathematics can resist everything except chauvinism. Should the contributors put forward strong reasons supporting the thesis that mosque is the larger in the Western world/Europe or the article should be amended or deemed NOT NEUTRAL. Moreover someone in the comments above stated Italy is not in western Europe: that statement has not ground and I remark, as non exhaustive example, that Italy is a member of Western European Union. As further remarks, the same contributor said Uk is in the Western Europe. The only source saying Italy is not in the western europe is the United Nations Statistics Division according to which Italy is in southern Europe and UK in the North. Therefore that article should be amended in that way: the mosque of baitful is the larger in Norther Europe and the second larger in Western World/ Western Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comment. Please note there is no common standard which is used to measure neither the size of the mosque nor its capacity. The source citing Baitul Futuh to be the largest with other various sources which do support this state that this mosque to be the largest in Western Europe. However, considering the 12000 capacity claim over the Mosque of Rome, I proceeded with a more neutral editing, by stating that Baitul Futuh is deemed to be the largest in Western Europe, however.... So this gives weight to neither to Baitul Futuh nor to Mosque Rome. Thankyou. --Peaceworld 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. First you claim there is not a standard to misure mosque capacity: I think that only standard we should use to count the people that can be accomodate inside the mosque is arithmetic. Then the only source claiming this mosque is the largest in Western Europe is a little article of the Guardian. This is not enough to support the thesis. Finally you proposed to modify the article inserting the word however.... ". I cannot see a such statement in the article. Again, due to lack of sources, lack of substantial argumentation the article should be amended or deemed to be NOT NEUTRAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is no common standard used by any of the mosques to measure their size whether it be the physical size of the mosque or capacity. Then capacity of the mosque in Rome also includes the capacity it is able to hold outside the actual building. The question arises should that be included? That's one of many reasons, there is no common standard between mosques to measure capacity. Hence we cannot simply use arithmetic, since there is no common standard used to derive such arithmetic. Though I have used the word however, if you have a read of the introduction you will come to realize that it means the same thing. I put however just to save time. At the moment i think the introduction is just perfectly fine. Unless some reliable source is provided which compares the two mosques together or some common standard is established to measure the capacity, I don't think there is no need to change the introduction. Than you.--Peaceworld 11:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the only source supporting your thesis is The Guardian, then I modified the article to emphasize the fact that the entry is based only on a single source, which is neither an architectural book nor an encyclopedia
Guardian itself is a highly reliable, if you want more : 1, 2, 3, 4, and the list goes on... are you satisfied?--Peaceworld 12:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources you cited are old british newspaper articles, probably retrieved from google, and not architectural books or similar.Therefore the entry has to be amended accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how does that validate that the Mosque of Rome can hold 12,000 people? Where are the architectural books supporting that the Mosque of Rome can hold that many? In fact there are no sources at all in the Mosque of Rome article. You are scrutinizing this article, and completely overlooking the Mosque of Rome article. Similar standards should be applied to both articles. You are treating these news references as utterly unreliable. Though architectural sources would be technically more reliable, but that doesn't make news stories unreliable.--Peaceworld 17:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Peaceworld, I am neither a supporter of Rome Mosque nor of Baitful one. I am simply astonished by the fact this article is so poor. Anyway I agree with your point of view, any reference to Mosque of Rome should be eliminated until decent sources will be available or in alternative the statement citation needed should be added. I based my previous comments on the content of English Wikipedia article. Please note Italian corresponding Wikipedia entry rely on a Italian architectural book. Obviously this is not enough. Please note there is a lot of articles about the building of those mosque but they are only available in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not implying that you are supporting one mosque over the other. I am claiming that you have not scrutinized Mosque of Rome at all, especially when as of now there are no sources supporting that the Mosque of Rome is the largest in Western Europe....and here you are doubting several independent news sources which clearly state that Baitul Futuh is the largest in Western Europe.
  • Quote: Anyway I agree with your point of view, any reference to Mosque of Rome should be eliminated until decent sources will be available or in alternative the statement citation needed should be added. I did not imply this anywhere, I said that if you can find architecturally focused sources that either compare the mosques or there is some common standard made available which each mosque use to measure their capacity, then fine, great! However, as of now none of the options are applicable. But there are other sources, as I gave before...and they are not unreliable according to Wikipedia guidelines.
  • Quote from article:...has been deemed, the Guardian and other British newspapers, as the largest mosque complex... Stating this makes little sense. Put it this way, when I read that the mosque has been deemed the largest mosque, and then by the Guardian and other British newspapers. I would think to myself, well of course the mosque has been deemed the largest mosque according to the some source(s) other the editor wouldn't have put that the mosque has been deemed the largest. Do you get what i mean? It's a bit like you have moved the references up the page next to the claim. Do you get what I mean?
  • Quote: am simply astonished by the fact this article is so poor Thanks for your concern. The issue we are discussing is not poor, but maybe a little confusing. There's a lot of work to be done on other aspects. --Peaceworld 17:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources you cited are personal blogs or a single article derived from the Guardian or others British newspapers. Obviously if you Google the statement "largest mosque Europe Rome" you can get a lot of Newspapers sources, British, French, Spanish, Italian, German and so on supporting the idea Rome hosts the largest mosque of Europe. Obviously you refrained from citing them. I refuse too because newspaper cannot be considered a valid source when talking about architectural subject
I am aware of such sources citing mosque of Rome to be the largest in Western Europe, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the middle route. The sources I cited are authentic enough, according to Wikipedia guidelines whether you agree or disagree. --Peaceworld 12:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are aware that a lot of sources, in different languages, support the thesis the Rome Mosque is the largest in the world and you still insist that Baithful mosque is the largest on the basis of a single article of the Guardian and equivalent. Obviuosly you refrained from modifing the article replacing the statements citation needed for the Rome Mosque citing those source because it would be disiruptive for your thesis. And about sources: you cannot put on the same leve lsources of different kinds. In a debat about Kalam, Hossein Nasr is more reliable than "The Sun" or is he not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state that Baitul Futuh is the largest, nor does the article say that! It takes a neutral stand by offering both mosques as potentially the largest mosques. Whether Hossein Nasr is more reliable than another source or not becomes irrelevant when there are multiple number of sources available to compare with. And i'm not refraining from modifying the article - it wasn't me who added the citation tag. I really don't see what your problem is here - There are multiple sources supporting both to be the largest, hence the current state of the article. --Peaceworld 16:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am noly emphasing the fact the only sources available which support the idea the Baithful Nosque is the largest are some old British newspapers. Therefore it'is important to remark that in the entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all none of those newspapers are old and British newspapers are as reliable as any other newspapers. Hence no particular reason identified for such an addition.--Peaceworld 08:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not reliable beacuse those article are non up to date. Therefore, as NO reliable and indipendent sources have been presented and since the whole article rely in a very old Guardian essay, the article is not Neutal. I keep my mind to empasize the fact there are not valid source supporting the idea that mosque is the largest. Therefore the intervention of a moderator is requested in order to label the whole article as POOR and NOT NEUTRAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine if you insist i'll request for a third opinion. I think I've made my point clear enough, but just to put it another way i think it makes no sense to say that these reports are not up to date as if somehow over that period the Mosque of Rome which already existed at that time suddenly expanded and ended up being larger with no known expansion taking place within that period. --Peaceworld 10:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion at the moment has been rejected but i've added other sources as well including non-British ones, so there should be no issues anymore. Not to be rude but just to point out the issue of the sources not being up to date is non-sensical when compared to Mosque of Rome. --Peaceworld 08:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article looks more reliable. Please note the some of the sources you cited are self contradictory beacuse in the same time they are of the opinion that both the "objected" mosques are the largest. I've no time at this moment to carry out a meingful search about your sources and I hope you acting in good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, please continue editing on Wikipedia.--Peaceworld 19:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceworld, it is still misleading to claim this is the largest mosque in Western Europe until you have architectural validation, you have no proof of that.Mnmio15 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)mnmio15Mnmio15 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnmio15: What about Mosque of Rome, does it have architectural validation?--Peaceworld 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be space in the article to mention that there is no universal way of comparing mosque sizes, but what can be done within the article is clearly compare the stats which are reliable, i.e. square metre size (internal, external, internal + external) of the two mosques plus people capacity (internal, external, internal + external) and allow readers to reach their own conclusions. I notice that one of your citations is the Evening Standard. It makes articles more credible if you stick to citations of newspaper sources which have a wider readership than just one city, the Evening Standard has been known to publish false claims in some of its articles. Mnmio15 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)mnmio15Mnmio15 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And on another point, based on your logic that there is no common standard for measuring the size of mosques, your conclusion is that it is not possible to compare them. So therefore by your logic the mosque in Mecca can not claim to be the largest mosque in the world and is the same as the one in Morden? :-) 82.23.127.1 (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)mnmio1582.23.127.1 (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing apples and oranges. There has been significant focus on the Grand Mosque with respect to its architectural features by a number of WP:Reliable Sources which for European mosques is not the same. Besides it isn't difficult to see which is bigger between mosques that cater for millions and those that cater for thousands. Secondly, it is not OK to begin comparing mosque sizes between different mosques on an article that is solely dedicated for the coverage of Baitul Futuh Mosque. That would destroy the essential purpose of the article.--Peaceworld 22:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of transparency, why not include a citation to the WP article List of mosques in Europe? At the moment there is a contradiction between this WP article, and the List of mosques in Europe article which shows Rome as the largest. Contradiction between Wikipedia articles is not good for its credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.127.1 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish[edit]

Please note that this is the largest Ahmadiyya mosque in Europe. There is a difference between mainstream Muslims and Ahmadiyyas, which can be seen as comparable to the difference between mainstream Christians and Jehovah's witnesses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.185.36 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is difference between many Islamic Sects. It is a place of worship where people pray to Allah. In my eyes that makes it a mosque per se. I've also been to Baitul Fatuh and can honestly say it is stunning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.168.213 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mosque is a Mosque.. Get over it! Khokhar976 (talk)

Retained material for possible inclusion elsewhere[edit]

Removed the following from the lead (misleading characterization), and retain it here for possible mention in appropriate context elsewhere in the article:

The Mosque has also been voted in the top 50 buildings in the world by Spectator magazine[1]

Mavigogun (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, shouldn't it not be removed until it is mentioned in the appropriate content. Secondly I'm confused why it misleading. Secondly, not related with this, why is it that a clarification is needed for the Ahmadiyya Peace Prize, when there is already a reference provided. Thank You Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the clarification tag: it is unclear to me whether this is the first prize awarded to Lord Eric, the first awarded at the mosque, the first awarded to Lord Eric at the mosque, or the first Ahmadıyya Muslim Peace Prize awarded, ever. Second, what does the word historic mean in this context? Has the award been given for many years, or is it being asserted that this contemporary event is being ascribed a historic nature? The tag does not concern references. Mavigogun (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the removal to the talk page of magazine poll: a Spectator poll isn't an authoritative source for architectural assessments; were this the opinion of, say, sourced opinion from Architectural Digest or the International Order of Architectural Engineers (or some such), then the importance conveyed the opinion by inclusion in the article lead might be appropriate. The high regard held for Baitul Futuh by Spectator readers may be noteworthy - thus my suggestion to include it in another section - but inclusion in the lead would ascribe it more importance than it warrants (essentially, it would be confabulating global stature). Mavigogun (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Baitul Futuh - top 50 buildings in the world Spectator magazine

Regarding a recent major edit[edit]

I undertook a full rewrite to address the following issues:

  • readability
  • diction
  • syntax
  • encyclopedic character

I endeavored to retain as much material and meaning as possible- consider this when apprehending the merit of the edit and making further improvements.Mavigogun (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A great Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for interior images[edit]

Please add interior images to the gallery, including mihrab, minbar, and dome.--Mavigogun (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done --Ceddyfresse (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Mavigogun (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British newspapers[edit]

The only sources claiming the superiority (in term of largess) of English Mosque are the BRISTISH newspaper. It is essential to stress it or in alternative the main article should be deemed as NOT NEUTRAL. British newspapers talking about a British mosque cannot be deemed as reliable. Someone could complain a certain "hooligans" attitude of them when talking about national subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying "hooligans" run the BBC? While I admire a healthy dose of cynicism when it comes to news media, I don't think we can disregard facts simply because they were reported on by it's own country's media. It's laughable, really. 196.215.18.76 (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Ahmadi mosque[edit]

Actually, the mosque would be the biggest Ahmadi mosque in Europe and the biggest islamic building in the UK. The largest is the Mosque of Rome. I am not sure whether the word AHMADI I've inserted sounds nicer, but if someone doesn't prefer this, then this sentence can be considered "the largest mosque in Great Britain". --115ash→(☏) 13:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@115ash You keep inserting a 'debunking' of 'largest mosque in Europe' (you did it again today) reducing the capacity of the mosque to a third of its verified capacity. I'm not going to edit this article, but I suspect you don't have a neutral point of view. SrLoco (talk) SrLoco (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which kind of "victories"?[edit]

Military victories? For a religious group who claim to be peaceful, that is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:1C99:9722:A280:9A79 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are peaceful and spiritual victories, as well as victories in battle. Muhammad expounded on this point in the Surah "Victory" (No. 48 in the Quran). J S Ayer (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baitul Futuh Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baitul_Futuh_Mosque&oldid=1199374705"